I once found myself in a tough situation. A senior of mine, in my direct chain of command was providing me guidance that was:

1. In some cases unethical
2. In some cases directly violated regulations
3. In some cases was simply unreasonable

The unethical and regulations issues were very cut and dry, and in hindsight the ‘unreasonable’ direction came after a few weeks of me pushing back on the ethics and regulations. The problem was, in the military there is little recourse for a junior whose boss is being unreasonable, after all … this is the military. I don’t have to like my boss to know I am required by regulations to obey lawful orders, even if they are not reasonable. I tried to tactfully let my senior know that their newest guidance was going to cause extreme hardship on their people for no good reason other than to ... cause hardship ... and that was unreasonable. My senior responded by stating there was an obvious disconnect between their style and my style and wanted to know what the issue was, so I honestly answered that I was not comfortable with the history of unethical direction and the direction to violate regulations. My boss was obviously surprised with my candor. Near the end of what was a really uncomfortable situation I was advised that I needed to learn to “play the game”, my simple response was that my understanding of things is that … at this stage in my career I thought I was expected to be a professional and not play games.

Looking back on the situation in hindsight, I find myself wondering about that statement: “play the game.” How does this statement relate to my status as an officer, my status as a leader? How does this align with my personal ethics?

How many people exhibit an overt sense of loyalty to an individual vice their oath? How many people demonstrate a self-preserving desire to not rock the boat and as a result do not stand up and exhibit character? What is the point of the authority of a commissioned officer or the authority of our senior enlisted if the people filling those billets are more concerned about their next evaluation and upward mobility than doing the right thing, for the right reasons … even when no one is watching? Are you willing to compromise rules for simple expediency or to gain favor with your boss? Are you “playing the game” to advance your career?

Do the ends, above all, justify the means? I would argue they do not. While the primary focus of military leadership is mission accomplishment immediately followed by troop welfare (“Mission first, Sailors always”) unless we are in a ‘rounds impacting my position’ or a ‘water rushing through the bulkhead’ type situation, a ‘git ‘er done’ mentality can be problematic and how we get things done is vitally important. Aboard subs, ships and planes I picked up the phrase “procedural compliance." My earnest question to any leader: are you overly concerned with procedural compliance in logs, maintenance records and/or uniforms but not in your own ethical conduct or the ethics of your subordinate leaders? Do you expect your subordinates to “play the game” so that they get things done and move along without noticing your lack of personal character?

I do not argue nor endorse the systematic extinction of the creative risk-taker or pushing the limits to accomplish hard tasks. I do however argue that at some point, we should expect that leaders – of all ranks -- are ethical. If we are willing in the relative comfort of a garrison environment, with bake sales and lattes … when lives are not on the line … to be loose with our personal ethics how can we expect that we will suddenly step up to the proverbial plate when the situation is truly a hard & tough situation that may result in our own injury or death or that of our personnel? It may be a harsh comparison, it may be one that most people will never have to make; I have been there and had to make those decisions and can attest that hard times do not suddenly create character -- hard times test character. Hard times will beat you down, hard times will physically and mentally exhaust you and you may even question why you are staying the course … but I have yet to see a sudden epiphany of principled ethical dogma when the going is truly rough. Are you “playing the game” because the situation is not “life and death” and you tell yourself you will do the right thing when the situation really needs you to?

Does concern for your career make you pause when a senior is going the wrong way or about to make a really bad call? Are you more willing to tactfully correct a senior that is not your immediate supervisor or evaluator? If so, you are allowing careerism to get in the way of your role as an adviser and a leader and ultimately of your oath. I want to succeed and hate to fail, but are you adding to a surplus of people who are addicted to success when you should be addicted to integrity?

sandsjames

08-11-2014, 11:30 AM

I once found myself in a tough situation. A senior of mine, in my direct chain of command was providing me guidance that was:

1. In some cases unethical
2. In some cases directly violated regulations
3. In some cases was simply unreasonable

The unethical and regulations issues were very cut and dry, and in hindsight the ‘unreasonable’ direction came after a few weeks of me pushing back on the ethics and regulations. The problem was, in the military there is little recourse for a junior whose boss is being unreasonable, after all … this is the military. I don’t have to like my boss to know I am required by regulations to obey lawful orders, even if they are not reasonable. I tried to tactfully let my senior know that their newest guidance was going to cause extreme hardship on their people for no good reason other than to ... cause hardship ... and that was unreasonable. My senior responded by stating there was an obvious disconnect between their style and my style and wanted to know what the issue was, so I honestly answered that I was not comfortable with the history of unethical direction and the direction to violate regulations. My boss was obviously surprised with my candor. Near the end of what was a really uncomfortable situation I was advised that I needed to learn to “play the game”, my simple response was that my understanding of things is that … at this stage in my career I thought I was expected to be a professional and not play games.

Looking back on the situation in hindsight, I find myself wondering about that statement: “play the game.” How does this statement relate to my status as an officer, my status as a leader? How does this align with my personal ethics?

How many people exhibit an overt sense of loyalty to an individual vice their oath? How many people demonstrate a self-preserving desire to not rock the boat and as a result do not stand up and exhibit character? What is the point of the authority of a commissioned officer or the authority of our senior enlisted if the people filling those billets are more concerned about their next evaluation and upward mobility than doing the right thing, for the right reasons … even when no one is watching? Are you willing to compromise rules for simple expediency or to gain favor with your boss? Are you “playing the game” to advance your career?

Do the ends, above all, justify the means? I would argue they do not. While the primary focus of military leadership is mission accomplishment immediately followed by troop welfare (“Mission first, Sailors always”) unless we are in a ‘rounds impacting my position’ or a ‘water rushing through the bulkhead’ type situation, a ‘git ‘er done’ mentality can be problematic and how we get things done is vitally important. Aboard subs, ships and planes I picked up the phrase “procedural compliance." My earnest question to any leader: are you overly concerned with procedural compliance in logs, maintenance records and/or uniforms but not in your own ethical conduct or the ethics of your subordinate leaders? Do you expect your subordinates to “play the game” so that they get things done and move along without noticing your lack of personal character?

I do not argue nor endorse the systematic extinction of the creative risk-taker or pushing the limits to accomplish hard tasks. I do however argue that at some point, we should expect that leaders – of all ranks -- are ethical. If we are willing in the relative comfort of a garrison environment, with bake sales and lattes … when lives are not on the line … to be loose with our personal ethics how can we expect that we will suddenly step up to the proverbial plate when the situation is truly a hard & tough situation that may result in our own injury or death or that of our personnel? It may be a harsh comparison, it may be one that most people will never have to make; I have been there and had to make those decisions and can attest that hard times do not suddenly create character -- hard times test character. Hard times will beat you down, hard times will physically and mentally exhaust you and you may even question why you are staying the course … but I have yet to see a sudden epiphany of principled ethical dogma when the going is truly rough. Are you “playing the game” because the situation is not “life and death” and you tell yourself you will do the right thing when the situation really needs you to?

Does concern for your career make you pause when a senior is going the wrong way or about to make a really bad call? Are you more willing to tactfully correct a senior that is not your immediate supervisor or evaluator? If so, you are allowing careerism to get in the way of your role as an adviser and a leader and ultimately of your oath. I want to succeed and hate to fail, but are you adding to a surplus of people who are addicted to success when you should be addicted to integrity?

Self preservation is a tough thing, especially in the military. I'm sure we'd all like to think we always do the right thing but even if it's something small we've all done the CYA thing.

I think the issue is that, even though we're told that there won't be any repercussions, it's just to easy for those who hold our careers, paychecks, etc, in their hands to do subtle things that can have a long term impact.

I look at the recent cuts and the boards that have determined those cuts. I've seen plenty of 4 EPRs given to people who don't "play the game". A 4 EPR cannot be challenged. When the time for the commanders to rack and stack the troops, much of it came down to those EPRs. I wonder how many of those guys are now trying to find a job to support their families because they didn't play the game.

It's much easier to NOT play the game when the military is trying to raise the manning. Not so easier when they are booting people out.

Stalwart

08-11-2014, 01:54 PM

Self preservation is a tough thing, especially in the military. I'm sure we'd all like to think we always do the right thing but even if it's something small we've all done the CYA thing.

I think the issue is that, even though we're told that there won't be any repercussions, it's just to easy for those who hold our careers, paychecks, etc, in their hands to do subtle things that can have a long term impact.

I look at the recent cuts and the boards that have determined those cuts. I've seen plenty of 4 EPRs given to people who don't "play the game". A 4 EPR cannot be challenged. When the time for the commanders to rack and stack the troops, much of it came down to those EPRs. I wonder how many of those guys are now trying to find a job to support their families because they didn't play the game.

It's much easier to NOT play the game when the military is trying to raise the manning. Not so easier when they are booting people out.

A large part of me agrees with you ... to an extent. There comes a point where you have to decide what you are going to do, and there are smart way to exact change in organizations. You can be the bull in a china shop, it likely won't work. You can use the tools in the system to change areas you can influence, that is what I try to do. I will never be the Chief of Naval Operations, so I won't "change the Navy", but I can try to make my little part of it as best as it can be.

LogDog

08-11-2014, 06:10 PM

A large part of me agrees with you ... to an extent. There comes a point where you have to decide what you are going to do, and there are smart way to exact change in organizations. You can be the bull in a china shop, it likely won't work. You can use the tools in the system to change areas you can influence, that is what I try to do. I will never be the Chief of Naval Operations, so I won't "change the Navy", but I can try to make my little part of it as best as it can be.
The thing I learned long ago was to make a good reputation with your boss' superiors so if there is any blow back from your boss in the way of paperwork, you'll have some cover from them. If those above your boss know you'll behave in an ethical manner then you should be able to withstand anything your boss throws at you. It's hard but you have to let him know that ethics and adherence to regulations is the cornerstone to trust and discipline. Once you've established this and upheld these standards the less chance he'll act that way again.

sandsjames

08-11-2014, 06:40 PM

Once you've established this and upheld these standards the less chance he'll act that way again.Until he writes you a 4...a rating that cannot be challenged.

LogDog

08-11-2014, 06:57 PM

Until he writes you a 4...a rating that cannot be challenged.
That's why it's important to have good relations/reputation with his superiors. If they see a "4" rating when they're reviewing the EPR and they know you should be a "5" then they can talk with him and find out why his evaluation is different from their evaluation. I know it can work because it happened to me. The Lt., former TSgt in our career field, had it in for me as a MSgt before I arrived and when my EPR came due he gave me an "3" rating. His bosses called him in to discuss it and chewed him out for a half-hour. I ended up getting a firewall "5" EPR. His bosses knew me, knew what I had done and how well I did it.

I've done something similarly with my people. When an NCO gave an airman a "3" EPR and I knew he underrated the individual, I talked with him, pointed out accomplishments the airmen had that the NCO hadn't acknowledged, and had him reconsider the EPR. He rewrote the EPR and gave the airman a "4" which was an accurate rating.

sandsjames

08-11-2014, 07:37 PM

That's why it's important to have good relations/reputation with his superiors. If they see a "4" rating when they're reviewing the EPR and they know you should be a "5" then they can talk with him and find out why his evaluation is different from their evaluation. I know it can work because it happened to me. The Lt., former TSgt in our career field, had it in for me as a MSgt before I arrived and when my EPR came due he gave me an "3" rating. His bosses called him in to discuss it and chewed him out for a half-hour. I ended up getting a firewall "5" EPR. His bosses knew me, knew what I had done and how well I did it.

I've done something similarly with my people. When an NCO gave an airman a "3" EPR and I knew he underrated the individual, I talked with him, pointed out accomplishments the airmen had that the NCO hadn't acknowledged, and had him reconsider the EPR. He rewrote the EPR and gave the airman a "4" which was an accurate rating.The thing is, he doesn't have to change it. There is nothing legally that could make him change it. The only thing that can do so is threatening him with a lower rating and that, to me, seems unethical in itself.

UncaRastus

08-11-2014, 09:56 PM

Before I retired, a long time ago when 4.0 was the best anyone could do, before the rating went from 4.0 to 5.0 as top ratings, I worked in a clinic which had a Lieutenant Commander nurse in charge. She wrote a 3.0 for me. I went to the Chief Nurse's office to challenge that rating.

I basically told the staff in there the truth. This nurse that was in charge really wasn't in charge. Seeing as how she showed up at 1200, and left at 1500, every day, I had to take charge.

She was in charge of a clinic with 3 doctors and a CWO2, and three corpsman, me being one of the corpsman. I had to make sure that the patient flow was going well, etc..

I also had to make sure that the two corpsman didn't take each others heads off.

Within that clinic, I was in charge of Respiratory Therapy (as an adjunct job), the stress lab, and the Cardiovascular lab.

I was also the scrub tech for if the doctors or the CWO2 needed to do any minor surgery.

I had to learn the nurses job at handling the allergy clinic, also.

When she was there, her door was closed and locked.

So. I went into the Chief Nurses office.

In other words, I had more stuff on my plate than I should have. No, no one died on the result of that. However, I was worn out at the end of each day.

The nurse in charge did not do one thing for the year that I was there.

She never eve saw me at work.

My rating was changed to 4.0.

The nurse in charge was called in, and 1 month later, transferred.

Sometimes, bitching about something does work.

For anyone new in here, I was a Marine before changing over to the Navy. Hence the DI cover, which job I did before transferring.

LogDog

08-11-2014, 10:59 PM

The thing is, he doesn't have to change it. There is nothing legally that could make him change it. The only thing that can do so is threatening him with a lower rating and that, to me, seems unethical in itself.
Actually, when this happened by boss' supervisors were the endorser and senior endorser so they could have non-concurred and given me the "5". They were trying avoid that and in effect give the Lt. the opportunity to save face.

sandsjames

08-11-2014, 11:38 PM

Actually, when this happened by boss' supervisors were the endorser and senior endorser so they could have non-concurred and given me the "5". They were trying avoid that and in effect give the Lt. the opportunity to save face.Non concur does not matter...supervisors rating is the rating...

DWWSWWD

08-12-2014, 03:41 AM

Non concur does not matter...supervisors rating is the rating... Not true. For points, the rater's rater's rating (whew) is the one that counts. This happened to me once. Supervisor wouldn't budge. His boss marked the next block up and that was it.

Regarding the OP's question, there have been about four times in my career that I thought, "Whelp, this is the end." Where my position on something was decided not on what I thought was a better way or an easier way, rather it was that the boss' way put me on the wrong side of my principles, I stood on a desk. On those issues that I had moral clarity opposite the boss' intent, I knew I would not move on the issue regardless of the consequences. There are different ways to go about that and it didn't leave any scars for me.

sandsjames

08-12-2014, 11:37 AM

Not true. For points, the rater's rater's rating (whew) is the one that counts. This happened to me once. Supervisor wouldn't budge. His boss marked the next block up and that was it.

I did not know that. I was under the impression (and am sure I was told several times) that the rater's rating was the only one that mattered. When it came to SREs then it would have an impact, but for those who didn't have to worry about SRE it wasn't an issue.

So why even have the rater mark a number? Just let it go up the chain and let them put it in.

Measure Man

08-14-2014, 12:28 AM

I did not know that. I was under the impression (and am sure I was told several times) that the rater's rating was the only one that mattered.

DWW is correct.

The rater's rater score is the one that really counts.

When it came to SREs then it would have an impact, but for those who didn't have to worry about SRE it wasn't an issue.

So why even have the rater mark a number? Just let it go up the chain and let them put it in.

There's no reason for it, it's just AF policy :-)

sandsjames

08-14-2014, 11:14 AM

DWW is correct.

The rater's rater score is the one that really counts.

There's no reason for it, it's just AF policy :-)

I stand corrected then...

DWWSWWD

08-14-2014, 07:52 PM

It's a helpful thing to understand. I've only seen it once and for me as a rater's rater I've always been able to get everyone on the same page. If the folks do understand how it works though, it helps mitigate some of the awkward, "Change your rating or I'll mark you down." type of thing.

For me, I've always made my best argument as to why I thought the rater should move his mark up or down. Usually a supervisor is doing the right thing on a macro level but when you play it to the bigger picture, the rating is either too harsh or too generous. I've always been able to help folks understand that but knew if I couldn't, I had the ability to rate the Airman as I saw fit.

sandsjames

08-14-2014, 08:06 PM

If the folks do understand how it works though, it helps mitigate some of the awkward, "Change your rating or I'll mark you down." type of thing.

Had that once...from a SMSgt...so I told him to mark me down...

He's also the same guy who said it was coming from the Commander and that we could go talk to him about it if I didn't believe him. So I called his bluff. Needless to say we never went and talked to the Commander and I did not get marked down, nor did I change my rating.

Measure Man

08-14-2014, 08:14 PM

The only thing that can do so is threatening him with a lower rating and that, to me, seems unethical in itself.

...IF, the rater's rater believes the rater is being unfair in the evaluation, tries to convey that to him, but the rater refuses to change...it would seem proper, to me, that when it comes around to the rater's evaluation, he could be marked down for his ability to evaluate subordinates, somewhere...in leadership or something.

...i.e. He gets marked down because he doesn't rate appopriately, in the rater's rater's opinion. I don't see anything unethical about that. Of course, it would depend if it was just a one-off vs. a pattern and things like that...

If, say, the rater's rater believed the rater was marking a subordinate a certain way because of personal relationship or prejudice, etc...it would of course be correct to have that reflect on the raters own evaluation.

sandsjames

08-14-2014, 08:20 PM

...IF, the rater's rater believes the rater is being unfair in the evaluation, tries to convey that to him, but the rater refuses to change...it would seem proper, to me, that when it comes around to the rater's evaluation, he could be marked down for his ability to evaluate subordinates, somewhere...in leadership or something.

...i.e. He gets marked down because he doesn't rate appopriately, in the rater's rater's opinion. I don't see anything unethical about that. Of course, it would depend if it was just a one-off vs. a pattern and things like that...

If, say, the rater's rater believed the rater was marking a subordinate a certain way because of personal relationship or prejudice, etc...it would of course be correct to have that reflect on the raters own evaluation.

If the rater's rater has a valid reason then, IMO, it's fine. To me, a valid reason is a guy gets a DUI, fails a PT test (though this would just be a markdown in one area, not necessarily overall) or is obviously showing favoritism.

If it's just philisophical difference then, to me, it's a douche bag move to even bring it up. And all a supervisor needs to do is properly document stuff and give a good feedback and I don't see how the additional rater has a leg to stand on. IMO, it has to be something big because most times (unless the rater's rater is at shop level) the rater's rater doesn't know what the guy is doing on a day to day basis.

Chief_KO

08-14-2014, 08:26 PM

Seen a few (10 or so) EPRs where the rater & raters rater ratings differed. I'd have to say an even split between the rater going higher and the rater going lower.

Saw probably 3 EPRs where the commander non-concurred and attached the (whatever the number of the form is)...and each time the commander went higher than the raters rater.

Ideally you should have concurrence, but personally I think it is a good system that allows difference of opinion...based upon a bigger picture view as one example.

sandsjames

08-14-2014, 08:30 PM

Seen a few (10 or so) EPRs where the rater & raters rater ratings differed. I'd have to say an even split between the rater going higher and the rater going lower.

Saw probably 3 EPRs where the commander non-concurred and attached the (whatever the number of the form is)...and each time the commander went higher than the raters rater.

Ideally you should have concurrence, but personally I think it is a good system that allows difference of opinion...based upon a bigger picture view as one example.

Ideally, yes. Seems like it would be much easier just to have the supervisor write the EPR and just have the rater's rater give the rating. Having the concur/non-concur serves no purpose other than to cause problems. Nothing is lost if the supervisor doesn't give a rating.

hustonj

08-14-2014, 08:49 PM

Years and years ago, I was involved in trying to help a young dirtbag NCO correct his rating on a shit-hot young Airman before th eNCO could actually do harm to the AIrman's opportunities. After over a week of arguing with him about things, we got the rater's rater (yep, dirtbag NCO's rater) to say:

"You're right. It is your EPR to write and to mark. You can fill it in however you wish, and I can then non-concur and adjust the overall rating how I think appropriate. So, go ahead, rate him how you want to, but remember this: I think he's a significantly better Airman than I think you are. Your EPR will have a maximum overall rating of less than you give this young man. Are there any questions?"

Sometimes the game is more fun than other times.

sandsjames

08-14-2014, 08:51 PM

Years and years ago, I was involved in trying to help a young dirtbag NCO correct his rating on a shit-hot young Airman before th eNCO could actually do harm to the AIrman's opportunities. After over a week of arguing with him about things, we got the rater's rater (yep, dirtbag NCO's rater) to say:

"You're right. It is your EPR to write and to mark. You can fill it in however you wish, and I can then non-concur and adjust the overall rating how I think appropriate. So, go ahead, rate him how you want to, but remember this: I think he's a significantly better Airman than I think you are. Your EPR will have a maximum overall rating of less than you give this young man. Are there any questions?"

Sometimes the game is more fun than other times.

Yeah...douche bag move. For a couple reasons.

1. When did an EPR start comparing a supervisor to his troop? You think the Amn is better than him...so what...they aren't peers.

2. Why threaten? Brief the guy, tell him what you expect. It's his job to relay your expectations. If he doesn't do that, then you mark him down. You don't threaten. Pretty childish move, IMO.

hustonj

08-15-2014, 01:18 PM

Yeah...douche bag move. For a couple reasons.

1. When did an EPR start comparing a supervisor to his troop? You think the Amn is better than him...so what...they aren't peers.

2. Why threaten? Brief the guy, tell him what you expect. It's his job to relay your expectations. If he doesn't do that, then you mark him down. You don't threaten. Pretty childish move, IMO.

Supervision's first responisbility to their troops is to educate them and prepare them to get things right after said supervision is out of the picture. You use the tools that you can to get through to people, to provide them the education they need. Some people have harder heads than others, and you have to go further to get them to undersand.

I think it is interesting that you want to attack a method that worked to get one person's attention instead of even bothering to arm-chair quarterback an alternative. When an NCO gets stuck on "But _I_ get to make this call!" and refuses to accept any education on HOW to make the call, on what the right call actually is or on how to justify the call to the chain of command, his supervision is duty-bound to educate him, through whatever legal means are possible.

Or do you see something wrong with THAT statement?

sandsjames

08-15-2014, 04:35 PM

Supervision's first responisbility to their troops is to educate them and prepare them to get things right after said supervision is out of the picture. You use the tools that you can to get through to people, to provide them the education they need. Some people have harder heads than others, and you have to go further to get them to undersand.

I think it is interesting that you want to attack a method that worked to get one person's attention instead of even bothering to arm-chair quarterback an alternative. When an NCO gets stuck on "But _I_ get to make this call!" and refuses to accept any education on HOW to make the call, on what the right call actually is or on how to justify the call to the chain of command, his supervision is duty-bound to educate him, through whatever legal means are possible.

Or do you see something wrong with THAT statement?

Except for threatening an EPR...that's not education...that's scare tactics. If you aren't part of the shop then all you need to worry about is that work is getting done. If it's not, then there's a problem. If you want to micromanage then just relieve the NCOIC of his duty and run the shop from your office. If your rating is a non-comply then so be it. But to say "If you don't do as I would do then it's going to reflect on your EPR is, as I said, a douche bag move.

And I'd be that whatever rating he was going to give his guy probably came from seeing the guy operate on a day to day basis while all you saw was what events he showed up at, how pretty he looked when he came to talk to you, and what his PT score was. Outside of that you can't possibly know how the troop is every day at work.

As has been stated many times, subjectivity has been taken away from the supervisor and it leads to overinflated EPRs. You, sir, are part of the problem.

hustonj

08-15-2014, 05:03 PM

So, you prove my point by repeating the behavior:

Your decade-after-the-fact arm-chair quaterbacking continas nothign but accusations and finger-pointing. There's not even an attempt to address HOW to educate someone who has refused to accept any information after more than a week of effort.

Identifying your belief of failure while refusing to provide any alterantives is an exmaple of a far more invasive problem than trying to correct errant behavior has ever been. You have no correction, just an assignment of guilt and blame.

Supervision is responsible for training their people to not need said supervision.

Some people train easily and nicely. Others do not. Supervision's responsibility does not fade because an instance is harder than the ones before it. Finding a way to get the member's attention and commuicate the required lesson is supervision's job.

sandsjames

08-15-2014, 05:20 PM

So, you prove my point by repeating the behavior:

Your decade-after-the-fact arm-chair quaterbacking continas nothign but accusations and finger-pointing. There's not even an attempt to address HOW to educate someone who has refused to accept any information after more than a week of effort.

Identifying your belief of failure while refusing to provide any alterantives is an exmaple of a far more invasive problem than trying to correct errant behavior has ever been. You have no correction, just an assignment of guilt and blame.

Supervision is responsible for training their people to not need said supervision.

Some people train easily and nicely. Others do not. Supervision's responsibility does not fade because an instance is harder than the ones before it. Finding a way to get the member's attention and commuicate the required lesson is supervision's job.

The way to train is through feedbacks and ratings, with "mentoring" if you choose. Threatening a rating is a D-bag move. Unless you really have the need to be "the man" then there's no reason for it. An ass chewing? No problem. Paperwork? Sure...go for it. Hang a rating over their head? BS.

hustonj

08-15-2014, 05:39 PM

And what do you think happened during the week of events leading up to the decision to try something harsher to get his attention? Tea and crumpets?

Again, you are assigning guilt and blame while refusing to provide alternate paths. That's a violation of the methods you seem to be claiming work.

Also: You seem to recognize that toxic leadership is real. Why do you assume that this wasn't a response to a toxic leader at the NCO teir instead of the starting position of toxic leadership above the NCO? Because the little man can never be wrong? That would be a fallacy, so obviously THAT's not the thought process, right?

Every post you have made demands that the senior leaders trying to correct the mid-tier member were wrong, while ignoring the comments about how wrong the mid-tier member was, and how he was abusing the junior people under his care. That suggests that maybe you DO buy into the fallacy, though I have no idea why you would.

sandsjames

08-15-2014, 05:50 PM

And what do you think happened during the week of events leading up to the decision to try something harsher to get his attention? Tea and crumpets? I'd imagine it was a lot of thumb twiddling and evil laughing while you plotted how to show this guy that it's "my way or the highway".

Again, you are assigning guilt and blame while refusing to provide alternate paths. That's a violation of the methods you seem to be claiming work. No, it's not, because I'm neither trying to supervisor you nor mentor you.

Also: You seem to recognize that toxic leadership is real. Why do you assume that this wasn't a response to a toxic leader at the NCO teir instead of the starting position of toxic leadership above the NCO? Because the little man can never be wrong? That would be a fallacy, so obviously THAT's not the thought process, right? I never said the NCO wasn't toxic. I was merely stating my opinion that threatening and EPR rating is a D-bag move.

Every post you have made demands that the senior leaders trying to correct the mid-tier member were wrong, while ignoring the comments about how wrong the mid-tier member was, and how he was abusing the junior people under his care. That suggests that maybe you DO buy into the fallacy, though I have no idea why you would.Nice, you made it almost 3 posts without falling back to your "demands" crutch. And I'm not ignoring how wrong he was. He very possibly could have been wrong. But you, as the senior, shouldn't be the one resorting to questionable tactics to get your point across. If you have a bad NCO then you have that show on his EPR. You have that show on his feedbacks. It's simple.

Let me ask you this. This NCO you speak of is a dirt-bag so would this one instance really change his rating? Would he have gotten a 5 if he had only complied with your line of thinking (or a 4, whatever his original rating would have been)? If so, then it's sad that you would rate an individual lower based one disagreement you had. If not, then it's sad that you would rate him higher than normal for merely agreeing with your way. And if neither, then your threats were empty. To me, that's zero outta three...

hustonj

08-15-2014, 08:45 PM

Yo are attempting to demand truth from a position without information, and assigning motivations and intent to people that you have never met and can't even number.

You are deamdning that your intenral vision is reality. That's not a crutch, it is an observation.

You are still demanding that your predetermined assignment of guilt is the only possible explanation of the situation, because you refuse to consider any alterantives.

Congratualtions. You have convinced another poster that this forum isn't worth the pain of dealing with your presumption.

sandsjames

08-15-2014, 09:18 PM

Yo are attempting to demand truth from a position without information, and assigning motivations and intent to people that you have never met and can't even number.

You are deamdning that your intenral vision is reality. That's not a crutch, it is an observation.

You are still demanding that your predetermined assignment of guilt is the only possible explanation of the situation, because you refuse to consider any alterantives.

Congratualtions. You have convinced another poster that this forum isn't worth the pain of dealing with your presumption.

The only thing I'm demanding is that you take some spelling or typing classes because, for someone who tries to pretend he's intelligent, you really aren't helping your cause in those areas.

Oh, and you don't have to deal with it. Nobody is forcing you to respond.